Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description claims 'Returns the resources in YAML format,' which conflicts with the schema's `outputFormat` parameter that defaults to table. This misleading statement could cause an agent to expect YAML output when the default is actually table. Annotations indicate readOnly and idempotent, but the return-format inaccuracy is a transparency failure. The `kubectl get` analogy is helpful but does not offset the incorrect format statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (four short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The analogy to `kubectl get` is useful, but the sentence about YAML format is redundant and inaccurate, reducing overall effectiveness. It could be tightened by removing the misleading format claim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it has a significant gap: the misleading YAML statement, which could confuse an agent about output format. It also doesn't mention the required `parent` cluster parameter or clarify that omitting `name` returns all resources of a type. Overall, it's minimally viable but incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by 'type, name, namespace, and label selectors,' which maps to some parameters but omits others like `outputFormat`, `customColumns`, and `fieldSelector`. Since the schema already fully explains these, the description adds little extra semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Gets one or more Kubernetes resources from a cluster.' It mentions filtering and the analogy to `kubectl get`. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tool `describe_k8s_resource`, which in kubectl would provide more detailed output. Thus it lacks full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving Kubernetes resources, and the analogy to `kubectl get` implies basic listing/filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like `describe_k8s_resource` or `get_k8s_logs`, and it provides no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.